Case: 19-10350 Document: 00515738542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 9, 2021
No. 19-10350 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Nicolas Salomon,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C.; Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Incorporated,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-666
Before Jones, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own
motion if necessary. Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167, 169 (5th Cir.
2000). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we are limited to reviewing “final decisions
of the district courts.” In suits against multiple defendants, a decision is not
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10350 Document: 00515738542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2021
No. 19-10350
final, and therefore not appealable, until “the district court has decided all
claims against all parties.” Williams v. Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341, 346 (5th Cir.
2020) (en banc); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (absent an order to the contrary,
“any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer
than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does
not end the action as to any of the claims or parties”).
In this case, plaintiff Nicolas Salomon brought claims against Kroenke
Sports & Entertainment, LLC (“Kroenke”), Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (“Outdoor”), and Pacific Northern Capital, LLC (“Pacific”). The
Clerk entered default against Pacific on November 6, 2017, but the district
court did not enter a default judgment. Around that time, Salomon
represented to the Court that he could not move for default judgment until
“discovery has been had sufficient to develop evidence regarding the
requisite damages at issue.”
On February 27, 2019, the district court granted summary judgment
in favor of defendants Kroenke and Outdoor. In the same order, the district
court ordered that Salomon either dismiss his claims against Pacific with
prejudice or, if non-frivolous given the district court’s findings in that order,
move for default judgment against Pacific within thirty days of February 27,
2019. Salomon initially moved for an extension to comply with the district
court’s order regarding his claims against Pacific, but the district court did
not rule on the motion and Salomon did not comply. Thereafter, on March
29, 2019, Salomon filed this appeal.
We remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court either
to clarify whether the court intended to enter a final, appealable judgment
with respect to Salomon’s claims against Outdoor and Kroenke or to consider
and otherwise address Salomon’s claims against Pacific. See, e.g., Picco v.
Glob. Marine Drilling Co., 900 F.2d 846, 849 n.4 (5th Cir. 1990); see also
2
Case: 19-10350 Document: 00515738542 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2021
No. 19-10350
Walker v. Travis, 478 F. App’x 864, 865 (5th Cir. 2012). We hold this appeal
in abeyance pending the receipt of the district court’s order or other
response.
APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE; LIMITED REMAND.
3